Anti-Semitism at UCLA – Let’s make it a truly teachable moment

The recent anti-Semitic incident on the UCLA campus is as outrageous as it is troubling:

The Judicial Board of UCLA's Undergraduate Students Association Council, which reviews cases of actions taken among the officers and commissioners to ensure compliance with the governing body of the Undergraduate Students Association, initially rejected the nomination of a Jewish student, because they felt she could not be “objective” due to her religion and strong affiliation with the Jewish community. The student, Rachel Beyda, was almost excluded despite excellent grades and a keen interest in the law. The board later reconsidered and some members apologized after a faculty adviser pointed out that merely belonging to Jewish groups did not pose a conflict of interest.

It is easy to label these actions as anti-Semitic, however, deciding how to approach these students requires a bit more analysis. What were the four members of the Judicial Board thinking as they pursued their offensive line of questioning, despite being told i that their comments were inappropriate? Here are the likely possibilities:

1) Jewish students are inherently biased and unfair because Israel has responded aggressively to Palestinian terror;

2) Jewish students could never judge Jews or others objectively which is why Brandeis, Frankfurter, Kagan and Bader Ginsburg could never be on the UCLA Judicial Boardl even though they seem to have done quite well on the Supreme Court;

3) Jewish organizations are inherently evil and thus, one of their members could never be on the UCLA Judicial Board.

Each of these attitudes represents the worst kind of prejudice–ascribing a group’s purported characteristics to an individual, demonization of Jews and a deep seated bias that was expressed by more than just a single errant phrase.

Had such an attitude been conveyed about other groups such as Blacks, Hispanics or members of the LGBT community, there is little question that the outrage would have been immediate, universal and the incident would have it compared rightfully to a Klan revival. Yesterday, the University of Oklahoma permanently banned a fraternity and is likely to expel several students for a racist chant. While that incident may seem superficially more egregious, the UCLA Judicial Board’s proceedings were worse. A contemplative body, rather than some inebriated fraternity members, calmly and thoughtfully endorsed the worst anti-Semitic myths. The true Nazification of Germany was mediated not by street riots but by the corruption of the legal system.

UCLA's chancellor Gene D. Block denounced the board's action and said it could be a “teachable moment,” but he didn't go nearly far enough in making it one. He took no definitive action about the incident. The students wrote a letter of “apology” in which they expressed remorse for the “words” used but still did not recognize the egregious nature of their entire line of questioning. UCLA’s response was wholly inadequate. What UCLA should have done was abolish the Council and reconstitute it with students who embody the principles of fairness and openness to people of all groups. That would have been the way to seize the moment and truly make it teachable.

What happened to Rachel Beyda at UCLA is, unfortunately, not an isolated event. A Trinity College survey found that 54 percent of Jewish students in the U.S.  reported being confronted with anti-Semitic acts or comments on campus during the first six months of the 2013-2014 academic year…

It is appalling to think that the current UCLA board will be sitting in judgment of other students. How could Jewish students, or for that matter any students with an affiliation to a religious or ethnic group, get a fair shake when confronted with people who are obviously biased? UCLA has not even approached an appropriate response.

Dr. Alan Kadish is President and CEO of the Touro College and University System.